Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

That's a BIG IF! We're just going to have to wait and see what they're able to lift from this death mask. They say they found part of the book of Mark. But, in my experience, Christians tend to see what they want. For all we know this fragment says something like, "Love God with all your heart", which is a very generic saying. Many of the sayings that Jesus is credited with were spoken by someone else, and/or are found in earlier scripture.

Like I said, we'll have to wait and see.

Yes, we shall!
It's going to be interesting

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

40 years after an event is a LONG time to remember exact quotes of what someone said. I don't remember things I said a week ago, let alone 40 years ago. Doubly so if the author isn't a primary source.

You and me both! But oddly enough, I don't remember claiming the Bible is full of exact quotes. In fact, that's (by and large) unlikely, especially in the New Testament, since scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek.

So tell me some quotes, from memory of course, of influential people you met in the 70's.

While I'm flattered that it seems to be otherwise, I am, in fact, not old enough to have been meeting influential people in the 1970s. A (journalist) friend of mine is writing a book that (if I recall the time period correctly) is set in the late '70s/early '80s. It's unlikely that most of the quotes in that book will be exact, but journalists and historians won't criticize it for that fact, since he's talking to people who were alive at the time.

Because the author used common Jewish names? That sounds like a stretch.

As I understand it (this is something I heard about, I haven't read the original material) it wasn't so much because the author merely used common Jewish names as much as it was that the author used Jewish names that were common to the specific place and time mentioned, and in such a way that indicated knowledge of the culture. For instance, the people in the Bible with "nicknames" like Judas Iscariot apparently had them because their names were so common as to necessitate a distinguishing feature. The frequency of names used changes based on time and culture, and I think it has the potential to rule out a forgery by someone with no knowledge of the culture, as the above poster suggested.

I had heard about this a while back, and I did some Googling today to track down the original research. I believe it's Richard Baukham's work that I was thinking of (you can read more about it here.)

I don't think this is slam dunk just yet, and hope more research is done into this sort of thing. It's an exciting idea with a lot of potential.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
You and me both! But oddly enough, I don't remember claiming the Bible is full of exact quotes. In fact, that's (by and large) unlikely, especially in the New Testament, since scholars believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels were written in Greek.

With the claims being made about Jesus, it certainly would help to have those.

While I'm flattered that it seems to be otherwise, I am, in fact, not old enough to have been meeting influential people in the 1970s. A (journalist) friend of mine is writing a book that (if I recall the time period correctly) is set in the late '70s/early '80s. It's unlikely that most of the quotes in that book will be exact, but journalists and historians won't criticize it for that fact, since he's talking to people who were alive at the time.

They would only not criticize it if the people he is talking to give him factual information. Any historian who reads his work would have to double check his sources to make sure the information he is recording is accurate before passing it on into the historical record.

As I understand it (this is something I heard about, I haven't read the original material) it wasn't so much because the author merely used common Jewish names as much as it was that the author used Jewish names that were common to the specific place and time mentioned, and in such a way that indicated knowledge of the culture. For instance, the people in the Bible with "nicknames" like Judas Iscariot apparently had them because their names were so common as to necessitate a distinguishing feature. The frequency of names used changes based on time and culture, and I think it has the potential to rule out a forgery by someone with no knowledge of the culture, as the above poster suggested.

I had heard about this a while back, and I did some Googling today to track down the original research. I believe it's Richard Baukham's work that I was thinking of (you can read more about it here.)

I don't think this is slam dunk just yet, and hope more research is done into this sort of thing. It's an exciting idea with a lot of potential.

Just because the authors of the gospels may have lived in the area, still doesn't mean they were real. Stephen King lives up in Massachusetts and bases many of his books in MA, but that doesn't mean that the monsters he writes about exist.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

With the claims being made about Jesus, it certainly would help to have those.

You can always believe in divine inspiration, if you like

They would only not criticize it if the people he is talking to give him factual information. Any historian who reads his work would have to double check his sources to make sure the information he is recording is accurate before passing it on into the historical record.

Sure thing! But a lot of that simply means talking to other people.

Just because the authors of the gospels may have lived in the area, still doesn't mean they were real. Stephen King lives up in Massachusetts and bases many of his books in MA, but that doesn't mean that the monsters he writes about exist.

Sure! One of the other posters was suggesting that the Gospel writers didn't know what they were talking about. I'm addressing his claim because I think it has some holes.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I COULD believe in divine inspiration, but that is unproven and has yet to happen again in the 2000 years since the bible was written. Why has god stopped divinely inspiring people? Especially in this day and age of supposed indecency?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I COULD believe in divine inspiration, but that is unproven and has yet to happen again in the 2000 years since the bible was written. Why has god stopped divinely inspiring people? Especially in this day and age of supposed indecency?

Has He?
I suppose you could ask Him about it.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I could, but I whenever I do, I'm never divinely inspired with an answer beyond silence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's usually my experience as well. Perhaps God is trying to set a good example for me?

There are some people (in certain denominations especially) that are still big believers in modern-day prophecy and the like. I learn towards agreeing with their theory and disagreeing with their practice, if that makes sense.

Anyway, I feel on-topicness slipping slowly away, but feel free to PM me if you want to chat about Christian denominations or your experiences (or lack thereof) with God.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Got anything?

Do you forget yet again that Jesus was despised by authorities at the time?... And you think they would allow "statues" to be built of him?... Not to mention that it was not what Jesus himself was teaching people about.

BTW, we wouldn't find coins with the image and name of Jesus like we have of Alexander the Great... Still, the only WRITINGS of Alexander the Great were written a couple of hundreds + years AFTER his death. If writings about some of the most important historical figures is found only AFTER their deaths, even hundreds of years later, how come you want to use the lack of earlier references to Jesus as evidence he didn't exist? That is a fallacious argument.

Do we have anything?... Yes we do, but those like you just don't want to accept such evidence. Heck, you have gone so far as claiming "Tacitus didn't write anything about Jesus" when the evidence provided shows quite the contrary.

And it is quite ironic that you ask if "we have got anything" when the evidence you are providing comes from a group of people that most scholars don't even take seriously, "Mythicists" such as "Raphael Lataster".

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Still, the only WRITINGS of Alexander the Great were written a couple of hundreds + years AFTER his death.

LOL Where do you come up with this stuff! Do you think the Greeks were illiterate during his reign and never wrote a thing about their king?

I think you mean the only surviving literature dates a couple hundred years after his death. Those statues were of his likeness, captured while he was alive. Unlike the picture that we have of Jesus that are born from the imagination.

a reply to: soaringhawk

B.C & A.D. Stop that C.E crap.

Did you really just type this?

*chuckles and facepalm*

That's all you have to say in this whole thread?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

40 years after an event is a LONG time to remember exact quotes of what someone said. I don't remember things I said a week ago, let alone 40 years ago. Doubly so if the author isn't a primary source.

Hell, a kindergarten class of 25 playing "telephone" can't get from one end of the row to the other without the message at the end being entirely different from what the "first" one said in a whisper to his neighbor!!!!

What's even more poignant is how often couples/pairs of people who experience the exact same circumstance or occasion remember the event completely differently from one another.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

The gospels are obviously not contemporary, it's unlikely they were written even by people who really understood the cultures and times where these stories were set.

Really? If the recent findings of a Gospel that dates back to 70 AD are true (that's ~40 years after Christ is supposed to have died) that's almost certainly untrue.

If...if...if. At this stage it's not certain that any of them were even written in the 1st century.

If I was writing religious propaganda/folkloric stories about Judea in the 70's, I imagine I would get a lot wrong. In fact the gospels so heavily plagiarise each other, no one can really agree on which one was written first. Yet even while heavily plagiarised, they are still wildly contradictory. There are passages that try to align it with prophesy, that seem to be a result of a poor understanding of hebrew.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that recent work has shown that the usage of the names used in the Gospels matches almost exactly the the names used by Jews of the time and era, based on records we have found. This strongly suggests that the authors either were present at the time or did their homework.

It's likely Josephus was used as a major source (at least for some of them).

The "census" claim was written by people who had no understanding of how and why (possibly even when) such things were conducted.

We don't know when jesus was born (conflicting accounts).

The "star in the east" account is clearly mythology.

The "slaughter of the innocents" is clearly mythology, probably lifted straight out of the OT.

We know nothing of the first 30 yrs or so of jesus life.

There is doubt as to the viability of the Nazareth, as described, even existing at the requisite time (to all but a few "biblical archeologists").


The "miracle worker/healer" who drew great crowds from far and wide, was unnoticed by every relevant social commentator/historian.

The temple incident is fiction. Next time you're at a large marketplace, try throwing the many hundreds of merchants out. Tell them you're "jesus" see if it makes a difference. When you wake in hospital, imagine doing this in 1st century Judea contending with armed guards. This 'badass' jesus is fiction.

The "third person" stories of when jesus was alone have no possibility of being other than fiction.

The Sanhedrin trial breaks so many Jewish laws it is clearly christian propaganda. It didn't happen.

The dramatic trial with Pilate, where he allowed himself to be a pawn in petty Jewish squabbles, is every bit as ridiculous re genuine history. The only meeting jesus might have had if Pilate decided he was persona no grata, is with the pointy end of a gladius. There was no "custom" of letting enemies of Rome go.

This is leaving out the "miracles", as we know they are folklore.

Can you glean one personal fact about the man jesus from any of this?

It is an intro (via a few miracles) to a "passion play".

Folklore.

a reply to: windword

A statue is not a text about Alexander the Great. Not to mention the fact that the Greeks, and the Romans as pagans made statues of gods and goddesses like Zeus, Apollo, Athena, etc. Are you claiming that a statue is better proof of the existence of historical figures than writings by historians?... Then I guess minotaurs must have existed. I guess according to you the Greek and Roman pagan gods and goddesses did exist...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Got anything?

Do you forget yet again that Jesus was despised by authorities at the time?... And you think they would allow "statues" to be built of him?... Not to mention that it was not what Jesus himself was teaching people about.

BTW, we wouldn't find coins with the image and name of Jesus like we have of Alexander the Great... Still, the only WRITINGS of Alexander the Great were written a couple of hundreds + years AFTER his death. If writings about some of the most important historical figures is found only AFTER their deaths, even hundreds of years later, how come you want to use the lack of earlier references to Jesus as evidence he didn't exist? That is a fallacious argument.

Do we have anything?... Yes we do, but those like you just don't want to accept such evidence. Heck, you have gone so far as claiming "Tacitus didn't write anything about Jesus" when the evidence provided shows quite the contrary.

And it is quite ironic that you ask if "we have got anything" when the evidence you are providing comes from a group of people that most scholars don't even take seriously, "Mythicists" such as "Raphael Lataster".

I didn't compare jesus to such historical figures, you did. I merely pointed out the absurdity of doing so.

Which version of jesus are you backing (there are plenty to choose)? Can you explain which one and why?

originally posted by: soaringhawk
a reply to: peter vlar

B.C & A.D. Stop that C.E crap.

I think not. I see little point in dumbing down to assuage the bruised egos of others. It's time to leave the 1980's and get with the modern era where CE/BCE and BP/BPE is the correct frame of reference from a historical and scientific perspective. Out of this entire thread this is really what you wanted to contribute? A trite and whiny epithet because you would prefer antiquated terminology based on one of this planets many, many, many faiths? Let's try discussing the actual topic at hand instead next time and avoid petty and pedantic displays while engaging in thread drift.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: windword

A statue is not a text about Alexander the Great. Not to mention the fact that the Greeks, and the Romans as pagans made statues of gods and goddesses like Zeus, Apollo, Athena, etc. Are you claiming that a statue is better proof of the existence of historical figures than writings by historians?... Then I guess minotaurs must have existed. I guess according to you the Greek and Roman pagan gods and goddesses did exist...

Gee, I don't know. Unicorns and satyrs are in the Bible too, not to mentions dragons.

a reply to: windword

So is Tartarus.

In the New Testament, the noun Tartarus does not occur but tartaroo (ταρταρόω, "throw to Tartarus"), a shortened form of the classical Greek verb kata-tartaroo ("throw down to Tartarus"), does appear in 2 Peter 2:4. Liddell Scott provides other sources for the shortened form of this verb, including Acusilaus (5th century BC), Joannes Laurentius Lydus (4th century AD) and the Scholiast on Aeschylus' Eumenides, who cites Pindar relating how the earth tried to tartaro "cast down" Apollo after he overcame the Python.[10] In classical texts, the longer form kata-tartaroo is often related to the throwing of the Titans down to Tartarus.[11]

The ESV is one of several English versions that gives the Greek reading Tartarus as a footnote:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [1] and committed them to chains [2] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;"
Footnotes [1] 2:4 Greek Tartarus wiki

Most Christians probably do not realize just how much of their scripture is mixed with Greek Mythology.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I didn't compare jesus to such historical figures, you did. I merely pointed out the absurdity of doing so.

I know you don't want to accept that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. You have gone so far as to deny even that Christians were being persecuted to the extent they were, even when Roman pagan historians refute your claims.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Which version of jesus are you backing (there are plenty to choose)? Can you explain which one and why?

The better question is...what other Jesus Christ that was crucified under orders of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers and religion were named after him are you referring to.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They have scientific studies that explain this too. Scientists who study the brain have determined that the brain remembers things very differently than a computer stores memory. The result of this is that your brain has a tendency to misremember things and lie to you when you recall them. This is why subjective evidence should be taken with a grain of salt.